My Response to the Grognardia Essay "More Than a Feeling"

[Treebore]

Good points. But in his essay, he says that "...the continued success of the old school renaissance depends greatly on promoting the unique qualities of older games in a clear and rational fashion."

How would you feel if the official defining qualities which are decided upon exclude C&C as a game with that "old school" feel?

Even if it didn't affect you personally, how would you feel if it affected detrimentally the # of people who give C&C a try because it didn't fit the arbitrary exclusionary definitions propounded by a bunch of middle aged guys on a few very popular blogs and boards, which people who are investigating what old school is happen to read?

That's the big reason his essay rubbed me the wrong way.

I don't worry about it. Thats for the individuals to discover.

I think of it in terms of the time worn phrase, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force him to drink". This is because in order for anyone to try C&C, or any other "old school" iteration, is for them to get to a point where they are thirsty for what it has to offer in the first place.

Plus I keep in mind that some tasteless people like Coke (I kid!), rather than love the far superior taste of Pepsi. What this helps me keep in mind is that everyones tastes differ. So Castles and Crusades fit my tastes almost to perfection. The tastes of others may make 1E their perfect game, or 2E, or OD&D, or Chainmail, or 3E, or 4E, or GURPS, or Rolemaster, or Ruequest, etc...

So rather than try and "TELL" someone what and how they should be gaming I try to just say, "This is what I do and why." If it sounds appealing to them, they will give it a look. If not, they aren't ready to appreciate the flavors it has to offer. Some day maybe they will. Until then I have plenty of people with which to do the gaming I like to do, even on WW D&D Day. At which I met two other fans of Castles and Crusades, but we all sat down and played 4E for 5 hours, and we had fun. Just that 3 of us agreed we would be having more fun if we were using C&C as the system. Still, we had fun playing 4E despite our taste preferences.

So my personal feelings are that we should all get over thinking we each play the best and most correct and most righteous version of a game, and just learn to unite under the banner of "We play RPG's!" and all have fun.

So if someone wishes to play a specific edition of D&D for the rest of their lives, thats fine. I will still think it is their loss, and that they should at least try out the other versions and systems for a little while, as well as other RPG's such as Shadowrun, L5R, ad infinitum...

Bottom line is, as long as I am having fun, and have friends with which to have that fun with, I am not going to allow myself to get worked up into a frenzy because someone else dares to play something different.

Now if they try and tell me how their game is superior to mine and how I am all wrong for playing it... Well, lets just say a swift kick to the crotch, or a haymaker to their jaw line might result. At the very least I will shake my head in pity and walk away.

I will do my best to stay out of edition wars, though. Its not worth the aggravation, and the bottom line is, "You can lead a gamer to the table, but you can't make him play."

 

[joethelawyer]

Popular being the relative term.

Yup. Sheer # of posts on a particular topic and the accolades which one earns from those posts does not give a guy the right to then define the essential qualities of the subject matter he posts about. Especialy when the subject matter is subjectively shared by thousands of people. He can certainly try, but the slapdown he is getting for it is the natural response to that bit of hubris.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The feeling came back, whenever I played 3.5 oldschool...

it may be more tha a feeling... but its most of it^^

I personally play many different RPGs (old school and new school?), and all in all its the same feeling: an evening where no dice are rolled is a good evening...

Andwhen dice are rolled, i am more happy with modern sytems

 

[Ariosto]

How would you feel if it affected detrimentally the # of people who give C&C a try because it didn't fit the arbitrary exclusionary definitions regarding essential mechanics needed for an old school game?

While promoters of Wizards of the Coast and White Wolf are busy defining old games as not FUN®, or at least as badwrongfun?

C&C may not be able to use the "d20 System" trademark, but its boosters can certainly draw attention (as do those of 4E) to the game's deployment of a familiar basic mechanic in a more streamlined and easy to learn complete system. It cannot use the "D&D" trademark, but fans can point to similarities with old games and the ease with which they are able to use materials published with those in mind.

Either of those may be a feature to one person and a flaw to another.

Is not this dismissal of the legitimacy of the term "old school" yet another "good for the goose but taboo for the gander" rhetorical trick? (More precisely: good for a big corporation, but verboten to hobbyists.)

The whole "what if" aspect is weaselly in the first place. As far as I know, J.M. has not set out to define C&C as "beyond the pale" of old school. If he has, then it certainly has not removed the game from its place at Dragonsfoot! I have seen no indication that any blog has kept anyone from trying 4E who was otherwise inclined to do so -- so why should it so influence decisions as to whether to give C&C a go?

Grognardia is not "official" in any way, nor is there any officialdom of old school. As to "D&D" on the other hand ... Hasbro owns the trademark. No difference?

 

[Aus_Snow]

While Wizards of the Coast and White Wolf are busy defining old games as not FUN®, or at least as badwrongfun?

Uh, where are they so defined by said parties, again?

A point of reference will help, for those who might hesitate to simply believe on sight.

 

[Mark]

Yup. Sheer # of posts on a particular topic and the accolades which one earns from those posts does not give a guy the right to then define the essential qualities of the subject matter he posts about. Especialy when the subject matter is subjectively shared by thousands of people. He can certainly try, but the slapdown he is getting for it is the natural response to that bit of hubris.

We're still talking about "old school" in relation to gaming at large, right? It's not as if "old school" is a term that can stand on its own, since it is a comparative term. I think what is happening is that there is a broad use of the term "old school" when someone wishes to point up the so-called numbers of adherents but when one begins to uncover that to which those adherents actually adhere the modifiers hardly stack as well as some might have others believe. There were about one hundred and fifty of us "old schoolers" at GeryCon in Lake Geneva this last March and I can tell you that the diversity in gaming styles and preferences were very broad indeed. But even new games quickly begin to lose their cohesion as repeated play breeds house rules and as some supplements are received at some game tables while others are not. The more time that has passed, the less likely that a colloquialism will truly cover its intended scope.

 

[catsclaw227]

While promoters of Wizards of the Coast and White Wolf are busy defining old games as not FUN®, or at least as badwrongfun?

Wait a sec.... where have statements come from White Wolf and WotC that define old games as not fun or badwrongfun? It helps if you support these claims otherwise others might see this as a fact and not just vague misinterpretations propogated by those that disagree with said companies ideas about what to do with their IP.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Aus_Snow!

EDIT 2: Pirated by Aus_Snow! (wait.... Plundered? Shanghai'd? Scallywag'd?)

 

[Aus_Snow]

EDIT: Ninja'd by Aus_Snow!

Rest assured, ninjae are not old school.

Spoiler

. . . but pirates are.

 

[Mark]

Wait a sec.... where have statements come from White Wolf and WotC that define old games as not fun or badwrongfun?

I think it is fairly common knowledge that any promotion of a new edition carries with it a certain amount of, at least by implicaiton, pointing up previous editions as somehow inadequate. Anyone who doesn't understand that as part and parcel of necessary marketing and hype isn't going to be convinced by a link or two pointing to any statements that might even directly say that older games are inferior. Oddly, that same marketing engine must also convince some fans that the new game is virtually the (or is it "zee") same.

 

[Treebore]

Wait a sec.... where have statements come from White Wolf and WotC that define old games as not fun or badwrongfun? It helps if you support these claims otherwise others might see this as a fact and not just vague misinterpretations propogated by those that disagree with said companies ideas about what to do with their IP.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Aus_Snow!

EDIT 2: Pirated by Aus_Snow! (wait.... Plundered? Shanghai'd? Scallywag'd?)

Some people actually read WOTC blogs and interviews of their employees, etc.... when they were marketing/preparing the customer base to convert to the new edition.